tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 13, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> ian bremmer is here, president of the eurasia group. "the new cold war on business." businesses in russia and china, businesses continue to cascade. isis threatens a town on the turkish border. and ebola continues to spread. i'm pleased to have you back at this table. turkey, a place you know really well. turkish inaction on isis dismays the united states, "wall street journal." u.s.turkey at odds as military advance. most people believe isis will take the town right on the border. >> you have kurds in turkey that are able to see them. that's how close they are.
and the turks have made pretty much every bad decision that could be made in the middle east. they have been on the wrong side of the conflicts and it will be hard for them to get to a place where they can line up with the americans in the coalition. that's kind of where we are right now. >> why? just because of the fear of kurdish radicals on the syria side? >> there were -- almost 20 dead. and the kurds very unhappy with the lack of turkish action. you know the one, better than most, he isn't going to react to street violence and say i'm going to do it. if anything, that has made it harder. he doesn't want to have his troops fighting against isis. he is not supporting isis, but not a strong opponent. he has wanted asaad to go and isis has been useful. >> he got the vice president to apologize for saying that he had supported radical groups like isis or isis in syria. >> getting the vice president to apologize, that is true. biden says something that are
intemperant but have a whiff of truth. turks aren't saying here is a bunch of money. what biden said is that the turks could have done more to close their border and i'm sure that's true. >> weren't the turks supporting isis? >> i don't think they were supporting isis. there is a difference between how far you are willing to go against them and how far you find them useful and tolerant. >> that sounds like syria to me. >> it does sound like syria.
you are here from the pentagon today, that the united states, military brass does president believe we have any credible partners on the ground given that isis doesn't care. >> no credible partners on the ground? >> not capable. >> that's what the president has believed and why the president can insisting if he injected weapons in two years ago, it would have made a difference. there are no credible partners on the ground. >> i have been very critical on the president but on isis, the president has done a pretty decent job. everybody says he doesn't have a strategy. if the americans aren't actually leading, it be hoofs you not to talk to the teammates. >> not enduring freedom or whatever. don't need to name it something. and also, it's not clear how quickly you want to win if you don't know what you are going to do afterwards and that's a problem, too, because the fighting on the ground in syria
and much of iraq is being done by people we aren't prepared to work with. we aren't ready for that. >> what does this mean for the advancement of isis if you cannot find a significant force on the ground, especially in syria? this advancement is in syria. >> what it means -- >> opening up a route to the town, aren't they? >> they said they are. there's no question that the fact that the united states is not out in the lead with the strategy, boots on the ground, means it's going to take a hell
of a lot longer to contain isis, never mind to ever functionally destroy them. that's certainly true. at the same time, principal challenges opposing isis to the countries in the region and even to the europeans, if you have the countries that are most affected by these things, not prepared to take a broader role, that tells you something how important it is to them. it tells you that they don't feel like they have to have -- it's not urgent, it's not a crisis. rex would you say it was a crisis? >> the advancement of isis and offering a safe haven to significant groups of terrorists? >> i think it is a sufficient crisis that the united states is right to be working to contain them. i don't think it's a sufficient crisis that the u.s. should be putting troops on the ground, because i don't think it is sustainable. >> because they will not do the job? you don't think troops on the grouped will do the job, combined with american air power? >> that's not my point. i think
they will do the job but wouldn't maintain from the united states. we get massive criticism internationally. building a broad coalition is you need complicity. not even cooperation. cooperation is going up. yes, this is a real threat, we have to do something. what happens when it starts to go wrong. civilians are dying. the saudis have some air force involved, it's not that they are being so helpful to the americans, but their governments can't say we are doing things wrong, because they are part of it. we need complicity. we have so little complicity. >> we need for the world to know not just u.s. versus muslims? >> exactly. i think it is a big win for u.s. and obama and kerry to have some of the gulf states flying right with us there because it means if this war is going to go for years and probably will, then most of the countries that are relevant around us, they will be forced to support the u.s. position.
>> how serious do you think it is, the threat of isis? >> i believe that isis the best funded well armed terrorist group in the world. in the history of the world. a very big threat. but i think they are very bad strategically. they have institutionalized themselves. they have declared a state and have to govern it. that requires a hell of a lot of attention and requires resources to be devoted to that territory. something that terrorists should never want to do. when they took the dam at mosul, they didn't mine it and say, if you attack us, we will blow it up. thank god. the kurds -- what do you mean they didn't think about it? >> maybe they should have waited until they could have done something. people said it was going to fall apart if it wasn't fixed. if you are isis leadership, isn't that important? the fact that the kurds took more territory.
they are fighters who are willing to fight and they have a lot of ammunition. but strategically, thus far, they have been making a lot of mistakes and given that this is going to be a long war, that is our benefit. >> immediate threat to us in terms of what they can do? immediately, how would you measure other than their training ground for jihaddists who have american passports and come back and wreak havoc? >> i hate to see this brand that has the ability to get people excited about violent radicalism against the west. you never want to see that because a whole bunch of lunatics are going to take advantage of that. if it weren't for isis, would some whacko in oklahoma decapitate a co-worker? i doubt it, frankly. that does affect the united states. and there is no question that americans have gotten concerned about this and affects our travel patterns. >> can it affect the order in the middle east? threaten our friends? can it threaten our friends? >> the single thing it has the greatest impact, the iran nuclear deal less likely to happen. we have aligned ourselves with the saudis and the arab monarchies. iran's top priority is isis and not getting a nuclear deal with the u.s. we only have six weeks left to get that deal done. everything i have seen on the grouped is the one-term president. he lost a key parliament member. i don't think they have this ability to get it over the goal line. >> the supreme leader doesn't want it? >> anyone smart in iran right now is they don't think the deal is going to happen. even if the compromise is possible, i don't think the will is there. >> what does that mean in terms of their getting a nuke lar weapon? >> they have -- nuclear weapon? >> they have a few months.
without consequences of strikes. in other words, you would no longer have breakout capability. beyond this point, they don't have a nuclear weapon, but you can't functionally stop them. >> they could have one if they wanted in a matter of weeks? >> i'm not inside the intelligence. i have heard different things from the israelis, from the americans historically. >> years? >> it's months. >> it's months. within months they could have a nuclear weapon? >> yes. >> and you believe the president of the united states would strike if they were to soon have a nuclear weapon? >> there would be a discussion inside the white house? >> do we do this or not? >> on balance, it's hard to imagine that the americans would engage in preemptive strikes to stop the iranians from having a weapon. there are difficult questions. what would happen if there are russians supporting their brethren in estonia, would the united states intervene to support estonia? i don't think the answer is preordained. >> nato? >> the americans are going to be the leaders. not going to be the germans. and if you ask me if the israelis will strike if they know the americans won't, it's a closer call, but i don't think they will.
i don't think they will. >> even if they know the americans won't? >> i don't believe so. it's important for the israelis to make us believe that that is absolutely what is coming. that's the diplomacy. >> they wouldn't do it because -- >> i think the knock-on effects for israel would be significant. iran has a real military. i think that israel -- they say it's a threat, but israel has 100 nuclear weapons themselves. they are in a strong relationship right now. their relationship with the west would be very seriously damaged and massive calls for boycotts and as long as israel -- >> they don't want to do it? >> i don't think they do. if you ask me, is it bad for iran to have nuclear weapons? the answer is yes. i'm not sure if i'm more worried
about this than india and pakistan. -- pakistan or north korea. >> are they more reasonable? >> i think they have slightly more capability of actually holding together as a state and maintaining control, certainly the north koreans. >> they are within six weeks, say, breakout capability? have enough centrifuges. if in fact they are at that point and getting closer, unlikely that the israelis will do it? unlikely that to the united states will take it out with an airstrike. so therefore, the iranians will have a nuclear capacity -- >> i think that's probably true. >> what do you think the saudis are going to do? >> i think they have been supporting plutonium project or pakistan thatn
clearly is meant to be so that if they need to have new -- there is a very big difference between the iranians having nuclear capacity and developing a nuclear weapon or testing a nuclear weapon. like so many things we have seen in so many conflicts in this world, where you decide to draw that line or not draw that line. >> i could ask a better question -- what if they are in fact -- what if in fact they do have a nuclear weapon. what if they test it and have it, do you believe the u.s. would strike then? >> they test it and have it, the answer is clearly no, because the rabbit out of the hat. then the saudis have to react and that sets in action a whole bunch of steps. retaliatory, as the real tory steps. tory steps --
escalatory steps. >> if i was sitting in iran and i thought you had the ear of the president, i would believe that the iranians could say we are going to have a nuclear bomb? >> i feel that the iranians don't have to listen to me to have that understanding of the white house right now. >> the iranians know the president wouldn't strike? >> they would not strike. >> does the pentagon believe that? >> i believe the pentagon's belief is that the white house has been very reluctant to provide them with options and leverage to use force or to threaten to use force. almost across the board. >> pentagon believe that the white house is reluctant to give them instruction to have a military option? >> why would you -- there is so much criticism despite of all the things to be positive of obama's strategy and isis, why would you take the option of boots on the ground off the table? if china has problems with the country, they don't say, no matter what, tanks are not going to roll.
i never heard a china leader say that. they would never say that. certainly not in hong kong. in hong kong, the chinese negotiation is, how would that work for you? the alternative is there. >> they have handled it pretty well. >> they have gotten support. one interesting thing i have heard in the last couple of hours, the hong kong chief executive, that apparently there is news that he is taking some money from some australian organizations that might be illegal. and the timing of that is very interesting. maybe the chinese want to find a way to get rid of this guy. >> i'm not even sure they need a means. since we are talking about this region, we reported on cbs this morning as we taped this on wednesday afternoon that the leader of north korea has not been seen for a couple months now. where do we think he is?
why do we think he is missing? give me a scenario. >> you know it's a bad week when the best news that you have is from north korea. >> i'm not sure that is good news. >> uncertainty is usually bad news. but in this case, at the same time that he has not been heard from and the official north korean media, which we should put great stock in, says that he is experiencing discomfort. and i don't know about you, but i wouldn't want to experience discomfort in north korea. that seems like a bad place to experience discomfort. i love the vagueness of that phrase. but at the same time, -- that's what they are saying? >> he is experiencing discomfort. i love the vagueness of that phrase. >> it's dark and cold in his cell. >> it's possible. but there was -- the leadership of north korea outside the military leadership went to south korea for the closing ceremonies of the asia-pacific games last week and not only
were extremely solicitous of wanting to engage but set a date few weeks down the road to engage. now i have to say in any condition, if there were a transition, if kim jong is out, the worst thing that could happen is internal fighting and the place implodes. you couldn't do that south korean mission in that case. first case, the military leaders wouldn't leave the country. worst case is to leave the country. he's done. so they clearly feel comfortable. either kim jung un is out or he is still in and actually experiencing some mild heartburn and wants to show everyone he is still in charge and continuing and making a bold move. >> what's the bold move? >> sending this delegation to south korea. that's the biggest opening we have seen between these countries in years.
years. at the same time that he is not been heard from. >> how long will we take to find out? >> how long do you think? they might never tell us. >> he has to make an appearance. >> what if he is dead. we wouldn't know. we wouldn't know. one place we can't analyze. >> he could be dead. he could be in custody. or he could be leading the country in a most brilliant step to take his country in a direction that none of us fathom him doing. >> we have no meaningful way to say what the hell he is doing but the thing that should bother us the most, does it have the potential to implode. the view is it's doing pretty well. >> biggest question to me where are the chinese and what do they think? >> the chinese have not been saying anything.
>> if anybody is going to be concerned about disorder in the north korea, it's the chinese because they don't want a bunch of people coming across their border. >> definitely. >> absolutely. russia, before we leave here. where are does that stand now? where is putin? has the united states convinced him that no more? >> no. but the fact that it is the last thing you are asking me about in this interview is indicative of the broader issue is a lot of things have run past russia in the priorities of the white house right now. we can talk about ebola, look at that, isis, china and hong kong. the fact that the russians are still in ukraine and troops still in ukraine and the ceasefire is at best marginally holding.
with the europeans -- it is getting colder -- russian gas is going to start to be important. and many european states are saying, we want to talk about reducing sanctions and removing them as long as they keep the cease-fire. cease tire. not pull troops out or come to a deal, not give back territory, just keep the ceasefire. >> who is saying that? >> the french. >> the germans? >> no. not to germans. the slovaks and the fins that are under pressure. the germans are under less pressure economically. the germans are still strong on this and the brits are, too. but we have reached a peak. and last thing is we have questionable cyber attacks on whole bunch of american banks. >> is there, among the people you know a conventional wisdom who is doing it?
>> conventional wisdom it's from russia. there is a conventional wisdom that the attackers have links to the russian government and conventional wisdom, no idea whether or not the russian government is behind it. but i'm absolutely concerned -- two reasons why the russian government has not engaged in cyber attacks in the past two years are because of concerns of retaliation and their own restraint. i don't want to bet on each of those two things. for the next six months, full-year, that sort of thing. >> he they doing anything different than what the chinese have done, i mean private companies in china? >> the chinese cyber is different. most chinese cyber comes from the p.l.a. and espionage to support their industry. >> national security issues. >> where the russians engage in espionage, most russian companies wouldn't know what to do with it. they do engage in cyber attacks to support the russians strategically. we have seen it in estonia.
so it is consistent, especially after the u.s. has threatened stronger actions against the financial institutions and we have said we are going to make putin hurt personally. putin makes these decisions personally and he is not happy. there is greater risk around russian intelligence than there would be -- >> in terms of cyber attacks. yes. >> do you think that he takes nato seriously so he knows yes, he may get away with something in ukraine, but no more? >> he has blown through every red line that the u.s. has placed on him. and i remember during the nato summit, just a few weeks ago. summit.
basically, everyone got together and we invited the president and said we aren't going to help you but let's be clear, if you touch a nato ally, our hair is going to go on fire. then we are taking you on. two days later, russians smoked grenades across the estonia border and abduct an estonia intelligence agent. >> what did nato do? >> great deal of concern. they were very concerned. >> moon expresses concern when he gets outraged. i think estonia, of course. these are nato allies will be met with very seriously. but the russians understand there is a salami principle here. and they are prepared to slice a little bit. and i wish i could say this about ukraine. putin has moved beyond that. >> what's his objective?
-- >> tobjective is to tell the americans, stop pushing me around. and i think that builds his patriotic support domestically. lord knows it hurts american companies. >> that's a big point you made in your article. americans are hurt in russia and china for different reasons. >> the chinese are engaging in economic reform. so they are using leverage with the chinese government to make sure the firms are taking it,
>> "the innovators", walter issacson is here. impact of the art and humanities on technology. i'm pleased to have walter back at this table. let me tell you about this. i loved this book. i love it because of the subject matter and i love your narrative skills and you introduced us to people that you didn't know. lovelace, i had no idea about her. >> the people who invented the computer and internet leaving aside the al gore jokes, these are wonderful people and don't know enough about them. like the american revolution. we know everybody involved.
to me, it's like figure out these people. >> tell me about the beginning, because you set out and thought about writing about the internet, period. and then you had a conversation with bill gates. >> early on, i was in charge of digital media and had a boss who asked me who said who owns the internet. that was a clueless question and b, i better figure out how it came to pass, the internet. i started talking to tim and vince, all the pioneers and i was gathering things for a book and i interviewed bill gates, he said what was the mixture was the combination of the internet with the personal computer and both come up together and finally joined. you should do all the pioneers of the revolution. >> and so you went out to get them. what's interesting, it's in the book but also the power of collaboration. you see this is not one more book about the lone genius achieving great success. >> those who write books have a
little dirty secret, is we distort history and make it look like there a guy in a garage and has a light-bulb moment. you will go around at all of those, those of us that have the good ideas, and most of the good ideas actually come from collaboration, team work. and when i did steve jobs, he's the ultimate of this great visionary and strong cup of tea. great interview with tim cook. but tim cook is a good example. steve knew how to create a team around him that were incredibly loyal. think of steve jobs as a lone visionary, i came to see him he created a team. >> one of the principles that we will get into, collaboration as a central element.
i said, lovelace -- >> ada lovelace, lord byron's child, only legitimate child. and her father was a great romantic poet. she was not fond of him. tried hard to make sure she didn't become a poet and had her tutored in math. and ada lovelace realizes that if you join poetry to technology, it was the same as those weaving looms that used punch cards to make beautiful patterns. she said we can use punch cards to make anything on our computer and comes up with a concept of a germ purpose computer by -- general-purpose computer by connecting the notion of humanities and art to science and technology. >> you see that with steve jobs. >> the collaboration between johnny and steve jobs. but steve jobs in the first long interview i had with him said i
was an electronics geek as a kid but i love the arts and humanities and i realized that standing at the intersection of the arts and technology is where you'll create great value. dna of apple. you remember all of this product launches. he ended with a slide of the liberal arts and technology as a street sign and said that's where we stand. >> you talk about this. there is alan touring and his new movie is coming out called "the imitation gang." tell me who he is. >> alan touring is so fascinating and worked at the secret facility in england that broke the german war-time codes. and he read about the notion of
a germ purpose computer. >> they called it a machine. >> universal computing machine that he does and now we call it a turing machine which can do any logical sequence. he and ada disagreed. they are a century apart. but he has what he calls ada lovelace's objection. she said machines will never think. humans will have to be the creative ones and touring said -- turing said, how do we know machines will never think. he came up with the notion of artificial intelligence. he comes up with a test to say how would we define a machine that could think. you put a machine and a person in a different room and feed them questions and after a while you can't tell the difference between the machine and a human, you have no reason to say the machine's not thinking. that is the turing test. this movie is great and about alan turing.
here's the thing about turing. his life was almost a part of the notion. he was homosexual. upfront about it and kept it secret when he was breaking the german war-time codes. and he gets arrested for gross indecency finally. and given hormone treatments and it's really bad and seems to ride with it for a while but after he has written this notion, a few years later, he bites into an apple laced with cyanide to commit suicide. is that something a machine would do? and it helps you realize the emotions that come with being human. fundamentally different these days. >> steve jobs' apple has a bite out of it. >> my daughter said to me when i was starting to work with steve jobs, she said the apple logo, that is a homage to alan turing. i said steve, is that the case? he said i wish we had been clever enough to think about
that. i think about that all of the time but when we first did that we didn't think of the connection. >> your daughter came home and written anes a. >> it was her college entrances a. my wife is why aren't you done with yours yet? and she says her essay and it's on ada lovelace. i said what did she do? and that became the framing device for the book because the concept of the general purpose computer, the one tied to humans as opposed to artificial intelligence, that's what ada was all about. the last chapter is called ada forever, everyone from touring and larry page and jimmy wales, it's tying intimately computers in a personal way.
to me, the lovelace vision sort of frames the book and takes us through. >> where are we in terms of artificial intelligence? >> i think we are always 20 years away. turing does the imitation game. the stories in the newspaper say things like they unveiled the computer that will think like the human brain.
every year almost from 1957 including this year, you can google it this year, people have written those stories saying we are a few years away from artificial intelligence but it was like a horizon when the ada vision or people like steve jobs, that you combine the talents of computers with humans, that keeps growing by leaps and bounds. and they are doing that with watson who could win at "jeopardy." bed to make it really powerful, -- but to make it really powerful ibm is pairing it or partnering with intelligent humans. >> my impression is that the velocity of change towards understanding or developing artificial intelligence, whatever the level is, is increasing dramatically because of how much stride we are making in understanding the human brain. >> yeah, but it's like there is an old saying -- >> not to be appreciated. >> right, and as bill gates said, we could reverse engineer the human brain and do it in a carbon base instead of silicon. he said that would be cheating but said that wouldn't work either. there is an old joke that artificial intelligence has been growing by leaps and bounds and about to reach its infancy.
i went out to applied minds in los angeles and they have a robot that can go across the room, but can't pick up a crayon and you go down here in manhattan, it can't pick out a mother's face in a crowd. what about all these things. who can do those things? a three-year-old can, a four-year-old can. i don't think artificial intelligence should be our holy grail. we will get closer when we get some recognition. but you know, i don't know that that should be our holy grail. i like what google is doing, which is making machines more intimate with us. the holy grail should make a partnership between humans and machines, not machines that can exist without humans.
>> the people that are running those, especially google, those guys are scientists, those guys are engineers. >> one of the things that steve said. when the marketing people take over the company, it no longer innovates. larry page says it, the reason we can be innovative is our engineers and product people run the company. that is one about 30 rules i would extract from the book is make sure product people run the company. that is true at amazon. and tim cook was more of a manager, but he has good product people around him. >> able to create the culture of collaboration. >> absolutely. >> when you think of the word innovation, it's like one more article in "harvard business review." and i said where is walter going. you mean something different.
>> innovation is a different word and has been sapped of a lot of its meaning. let's not talk about innovation in the abstract. let me show you what bill gates did, what steve jobs did. the people invented the transistor and how that led to something. i wanted to look in a story telling -- this is a narrative book and story telling is not 12 easy lessons of innovation, because i wanted to do some real reporting and say how did they make that creative leap and do it as a team, but who was the visionary that helped make the leap, because you need a visionary and team. it's more of a book about real people who do it and trying to rescue the word innovation. innovation is such a buzz word
that people think they are going to do a web site explaining innovation. i said let me report it and show you what happened all the way through google and wikipedia. >> we live in a global world and look at china and other places in the world, for a long time we took pride in the fact that the googles and ibms and xerox and apple came out of silicon valley and other countries could not create a silicon valley. is that still true? >> it's still true. let's take google, his parents are jewish and in russia and they emigrate. they are brought to maryland and he studies math and becomes a co-founder of google. we need to keep our immigration fixed if we want the best and brightest, not to come here and study and go home but to get visas to work here. >> we are getting the smart people from other countries?
>> not bad to have a brain magnet. whether russia or china, people don't feel comfortable with the free-flow of information. you see what is happening in china this week. i think we are very comfortable ever since the days of ben franklin and thomas payne. we have to preserve that as well. i'll take a woman programmer who helped create a program. she was from missouri, a tiny town, less than 200 people and goes to missouri state college and decides she want to become a math person and programs with five other woman. paid $78 a year to go to college. that college, missouri state is now $14,000 a year. we have to make sure we have a k-12 education system that attracts everybody. >> you said a wonderful thing,
but it was a quote from you about -- it was about the quality of opportunity. that we lose that and unless we make sure we capture that, because differences in education and things like that are creating inequality of opportunity. the digital age has a couple of things it can do. improve education worldwide. secondly, it could either
equalize the opportunity of people everywhere to have access to information, including people who aren't in grade schools or widen the digital divide. i don't believe technology has its own personality. i would hope that the next wave of the digital revolution is dedicated to being inclusive and making sure that the prosperity is open to all, not to just to -- >> the book points out there have been a lot of women who made contributions but not necessarily recognized for it. >> women made more contributions in the early days of computing partly because men were obsessed with the hardware. there were a lot of women in math. they programmed. grace harper. she's -- when pearl harbor happens, she leaves her husband and joins the navy and ends up programming the mach i and women pioneering. >> which reminds me, steve job'' hero was robert oppenheimer. >> they created the manhattan
project. and what it was bringing the best minds and best engineers and the people who knew how to screw things in and be mechanics and grease. he made this all work together, and that was the ultimate collaboration team work. when steve talked to me about that, that was one of the things that made me think, that is why i need to do a book. >> didn't you test chapters of this book on the internet? >> that was something i was writing one night about the early internet. and i said, why don't i try to do that with this book, use it for research. and back in the early days of the internet, there were a lot of bulletin boards and news groups. it wasn't just like web sites. i said where is a place like wikipedia, i could put something up and try to edit. i like medium, which is created by williams and co-founder of twitter, and i put up chapters on on medium, there is a whole section in there.
i put up the software chapter and a few people said, here's what we did when we created the first application software, which is a spreadsheet software. and i said that's interesting and i put it in the book. and i hope someday where we can collaborate on books online where someone like an author would write it and divvy up the royalties so you could have collaboratively-created books. this book was posted and allowing people to make comments. >> you talked about technology and humanities. bill buckley said to me once, talking about having run once for collective office, that people cut out to be actors or observers. have you ever been motivated to try to create something in collaboration with people beyond media, which is your home? >> done a lot in media. and i guess i'm more of a story teller.
as you know, we have done a lot of things together. starting with the time 100. let's bring people together. so don't know my talents are as a manager or someone who can execute. i ran cnn and i must say i wasn't the best at being a tough executive. so, you know -- >> when you look at that, what was the lesson that came out of that experience? >> i think you learn that you have different passions and talents. yours is not been let me run pbs. yours has been let me bring people to the table. and you got to learn, that was a learning experience for me, that being a heavy-duty manager and boss didn't -- wasn't my passion. my passion was kicking around ideas with people, trying to get people to do some things. at "time" magazine when he -- i was there, it was a smaller place. i'm going to go to the aspen institute which is smaller and work on certain ideas. you have to learn what your passions are and storytelling to me is the greatest fun i have. because i think you can sort of bend the world a little bit by
saying let me tell you a story. >> aspen institute is the founder, it seems to me, the idea of bringing smart people together, not only because of cross fertilization and the networking, but you will hear ideas. yet it seems like they are happening everywhere. the "new york times" is doing or "financial times" is doing it. what is the essence of that? >> one curious thing is we thought that the internet, with its networks, would allow us to network virtually, have friends on facebook, sort of convene in google chat rooms.
if one of the lessons of this book and steve jobs knew it well, is that and marissa when she took over yahoo!. you have to get people together, that collaboration has to take place. when you get people together in the flesh, bell labs. it goes all the way through googleplex, yahoo! and others. with this ability to have friends around the world on facebook and communicate, it increases our desire to get together physically, not decreases it. i think it goes back to greek philosopher who said man is a social animal. the internet is being used for connectivity -- we thought we were going to live and telecommute from montana. people moved to san francisco, boston, new orleans and austin and want to be around other people. i don't think that's ever going to change. what we have talked about is it whets the desire.
fair." connect arts and science, creativity comes from collaboration. collaboration works best in person. vision without execution is hallucination. tell me about that. >> there's so many people starting with john vincent who couldn't put together a team and execute it all the way through a crazed dude who started a whole lot of internet companies in the 1970's, including aol and wept down in flames until they got men to execute it. the google guys had great vision and bring in your friend when they needed to execute. if you go around to all these conferences, everybody wants to show you their really cool vision. let me pull out my iphone. they said it's only a vision. and they don't create teams. >> has to be on the basis of technology. >> i want to pull it out and show it to you. >> last thing in this, this is a great book "the innovators" gives you real insights to not only being an innovator but to life itself. thank you. having authored -- the subtitle, i meant to say, how a group of hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution.